Francis Fukuyama. The end of the Cold War as the end of history.

Introduction.
The specifics of the international situation after the Cold War.
Since 1985, the world is going through an amazing evolution. The interdependence emerged and has become a reality of understanding of all processes in the world. Peace, freedom, human rights, social security, democracy have taken place of those values, because of which the major battles were unfold in the international arena and within countries. Overnight concepts collapsed that before seemed unshakable. In this case, not only the political picture of the world changed . At large numbers of people in different countries sense of global community, solidarity, public interest, human intimacy has been strengthened . Not surprisingly, that the rapid evolution of the global situation, the collapse of the bipolar system and fade into the background of ideological aspects confused scientists specializing in political predictions.
Now, it is necessary not only to explain the reasons which led to the formation of new political realities after the "cold war", but also suggest new approaches and concepts on the basis of which it was possible to trace the dynamics of international relations in a changing world.

Francis Fukuyama, his works and intepretations.
Francis Fukuyama - known American political scientist and geopolitician. He received a bachelor's degree from Cornell University (New York), then - PhD in political science from Harvard University.
"The End of History and the Last Man" is the first book of the American philosopher and political scientist Francis Fukuyama, was released in 1992 by publisher Free Press. It preceded the appearance of the book's publication in the journal The National Interest essay "The End of History?" (1989), which has received considerable attention in the press and scientific press. In his book "The End of History and the Last Man" Fukuyama continues the essay and argues that the spread in the world of Western-style liberal democracy indicates the end point of socio-cultural evolution of mankind and the formation of the final form of government. In the view of Fukuyama's end of history, however, does not mean the end of the event history, but it means the end of the century ideological confrontations, global wars and revolutions, and with it - the end of art and philosophy.
The book "The End of History and the Last Man," was subjected to abundant criticism in the scientific literature and in journalism. Most reviewers have pointed to the ideological bias of the author's extreme commitment to liberal democracy, the selectivity in the evaluation and selection of the events of the facts, as well as the underestimation of the importance of such movement has grown, openly opposing the spread of liberal democracy as Islamic fundamentalism.
Francis Fukuyama has taken an active part in the debate that raged after the release of the book, consistently defending his positions, but in subsequent works he gradually revised the previously stated views.
Fukuyama contemplates the Soviet Union and comes to the conclusion that the post-historical consciousness represented by the "new thinking" - the only possible future for the Soviet Union. Fukuyama writes: "The Soviet Union is on the crossroads: either it enters into the road, which is forty-five years ago chose Western Europe and which was followed by the majority of Asian countries, or, confident in its own uniqueness, stucks in place. The selection will be huge for us, because when you consider the territory and the military power of the Union, it will continue to absorb our attention, making it difficult to realize that we are already on the other side of the history. "
Challenge facing the world is to learn to settle conflicts that exist or will exist between different ideas in such ways as negotiation, mediation, counseling. In the world of social science today is one of the central points is a provision under which the social development involves not so much as confrontation, an irreconcilable clash of different ideas, cultures, values, but their mutual enrichment, dialogue and through that their harmonization. Thus, following Fukuyamas logic, if we talk about the end of history, it is rather the end of the history of war, violence, and it makes no sense to link the end of history with the victory of the liberal ideology.
Fukuyama concludes his article with words that the end of the story is sad, because that would not be an ideological struggle that requires courage, imagination and idealism - instead of all this - the economic calculation, the endless technical problems, environmental concerns, and the satisfaction of sophisticated queries of a consumer. In posthistorical period there is no art, no philosophy, there is a carefully guarded museum of human history.

Criticisms.
The controversy about the "end of history" began in 1989, before the publication of the book "The End of History and the Last Man", when its piece was published in "The National Interest". The majority understood the words on the achievement of mankind "end of history" literally (eg, Dwight Ueynmen article "Voyage Into the Digital Universe"). According to Ueynmen, Fukuyama idealizes the principles of liberal democracy and the free market and sees no opportunities for their development and improvement.
Critics have focused on the fact that Fukuyama is too one-sided assesses the situation, he did not see that in addition to the confrontation of East and West, there are other very good reasons for conflict, clash of nations and peoples, widening gap between the North and the South, the renaissance of religious fundamentalism, the revival of nationalist extremism, also it was pointed the fact that the defeat of the totalitarian 'communism' does not mean that the historical scene descended basic values of communism - the ideas of justice, equality and freedom.
Russian researchers expressed about Fukuyama as: for example, litterateur D.Zatonsky in "Postmodernism: The hypothesis" (magazine "Foreign Literature", 1996) critically examines the work of Fukuyama's "end of history", placing it in the context of postmodern culture. Moreover, in his opinion Fukuyama's work is nothing more than a literary consequence of the postwar period, and refers to the philosophical kind of literature.
Immediately after the release of the print book, "The End of History and the Last Man" has caused a huge wave of reviews and the response of publications, becoming one of the most influential works of the 90-ies of XX century.
'Francis Fukuyama came up with a theory and a catchy phrase that turned him into an intellectual rock star' - wrote journalist Sarah Baxter. - 'Article published in a small magazine in small editions, literally electrified the entire academic world. His reflections resulted in a book, which became a global best-seller'.
Hidekazu Kawai Japanese political scientists commented Fukuyamas work with two main words: "You misunderstand" .
"The tremendous interest in Fukuyama essay had both political and cultural reasons. The former is a "revolution" in Eastern Europe ... - wrote Hidekazu - The rapid replacement of Marxist-Leninist ideology of "new thinking" and even more rapid disintegration of the socialist camp was a shock, and for analysts not less than for ordinary, inexperienced in political forecasts citizens. That why it is so complecated to interpret and understand'.
In the book "The Ghosts of Marx" the French philosopher Jacques Derrida pointed out that Fukuyama declares an accomplished "the end of history" which has come with the victory of the liberal ideas of democracy, which does not have, in his view, equivalent alternatives, and at the same time openly ignores evidence that liberal democracy in its ideal form does not exist anywhere in the world , that is an achievement of the future or that it is much more likely unattainable ideal. Derrida writes: "As Fukuyama ignored then how to think in an event, it randomly oscillates between two incompatible ways of reasoning."
The article «Reflections on the End of History, Five Years Later» Fukuyama explained his position on this and related issues. He pointed out that critics often mixed empirical and nominative positions in his book. The proclamation of the "end of history" is nominative, but not empirical: it does not mean that the "end of history" - it is like that, that was the end of wars, famine, ethnic and religious conflicts, and the fact that in terms of ideas and theories are no more viable alternatives to liberal democracy. "The most conventional false interpretation of my argument is the assertion that the" end of history "is an empirical statement describing the current situation in the world - wrote an American political scientist. - These critics believe that I said that there will not be any war, poverty, conflict at all'.
Many researchers have noted that Fukuyama talks about the triumph of democracy and capitalism, while forgetting that they are not able to provide equal opportunities and equal rights for all citizens.
British historian Perry Anderson, one of the prominent representatives of Western Marxism, pointed to the fact that appealing to the idealistic legacy of Hegel, Fukuyama ignores Marx and historical materialism, and with them, the class struggle, which does not disappear in a capitalist society where the capitalists exploit workers. On the planet of the few capitalist prosperity is based on the misery of the majority. The difference between the U.S. and India - the standard of living higher than in the first 70 positions. This oligarchic capitalism that generates the nuclear standoff, which can not be kept in a small circle, the flow of emigration to developed countries, hunger, poverty, environmental destruction. Thus, according to Anderson, to talk about the "end of history" is not possible.

'The end of history' today.
After the events at the beginning of the XXI century, in particular the attacks of September 11, Fukuyama's theory was recognised as "outdated" and "naive." In the words of an article in the Times, «story renewed its motion, leaving Francis Fukuyama prophesied its end, trail in his tail." However, the new political realities were unable to convince the scientist. In his works he continued to defend former positions. For example, in an article written shortly after the September 11, Australian, he stated: "I believe that in the end I will stay right: modernity - a powerful freight train that does not go down the slope by recent events, anyhow painful and unprecedented they were. We remain at the end of the history, because there is only one system that continues to dominate world politics - the system of liberal-democratic. "
In his review of two books ("The End of History" and "America at a Crossroads"), published under the title "Two Fukuyama," the British political scientist Anatol Lieven wrote that as a thinker in the field of history, culture and social science Fukuyama stands out not only the sharpness and depth of thought, but often by the fact that Paul Berman in his review for the New York Times described as playfulness. He likes to toss in the air conflicting ideas and competing schools of thought and juggle them. And even if the result is often obtained a terrible mix-up, the very process of thinking of the author captivates and stimulates the imagination.

Conclusion.
Thus, the "end of history" Fukuyama brings to an end of ideology, before fighting for the political and social domination. The end of ideology coincides with the end of the confrontation systems. Inherent in liberal democracy form of government and specifically to the fundamental principle of law it is final and not subject to improvement. The victory of the liberal state is directly related to the "attraction" and "vitality" of the market economy.
According to the statistics presented in the work of Fareed Zakaria, in 1900 no country was not what we now think of democracy - namely, the government formed after the elections, which may be open to all adult citizens. Today, such system operates in 119 countries, that is, 62% of all countries of the world. What once was the practice inherent in only a handful of states located on the shores of the North Atlantic, it has now become a familiar form of government for a significant portion of humanity. Outdated monarchy, fascism and communism is completely discredited. Even a Muslim theocracy attracts only a few fanatics. In the vast majority of democracy has become the only source of political legitimacy. Even if the opponents of democracy have resorted to its rhetoric and its rituals reproduce, so she really won. But this conclusion is too optimistic: it turned out that the structure of liberal democracy and liberal democracy often do not match. Thus, the path to liberal democracy in many countries is much more complex and tortuous than anticipated Fukuyama. But this, it seems, does not refute the theory of the American philosopher, and forces it to consider a broader time perspective and give it a more allegorical interpretation.
In my opinion, as the end of history can not be understood as a triumph of liberal democracy, but the creation of a system in which any attempts of resistance will be broken. And maybe after that nothing really happens, the world will be conflict-free society. Perhaps the story really is a one-way process that incorporates advances in science and technology, but that does not mean that this process should result and finish with a liberal democracy.

Bibliography:
Books:
1. Fukuiama, F. (2005 edition) 'The end of history and the Last Man'. (Philosophy). Retrieved on 18, April, 2013.
2. Lancov, S. (2006) 'World politics and International Relations'. Studybook. Retrieved on 18, April, 2013.
3. Zakaria F. (2004) 'The future of freedom: illiberal democracy in the United States and beyond'. Retrieved on 20, April, 2013.
Articles:
1. Sokovnina, S. (2001) Iurii Boldyrev: "Achieving something, if supported". Nezavisimaia gazeta. Retrieved on 21, April, 2013.
2. Hidekazu Kawai (1998) 'Japanese politics and Future World'. 日本の政治と未来の世界.Retrieved on 7, May, 2013.
3. Fukuiama, F. (1989). 'The end of History?'. The National Interest. Retrieved on 18, April, 2013.
4. Jacques Derrida (1994). Specters of Marx: State of the Debt, the Work of Mourning and the New International. Short summary. Retrieved on 7, May, 2013.